DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 of the claim contains the phrase, “a same as each other,” when it should read the same as each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 of the claim contains the phrase, “the plurality of semiconductor elements” when it should read a plurality of semiconductor elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 of the claim contains the phrase, “the plurality of semiconductor elements” when it should read a plurality of semiconductor elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is further objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 of the claim contains the phrase, “the plurality of semiconductor element” when it should read the plurality of semiconductor elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0111379 A1, hereinafter “Ishiyama”) in view of Hotta et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0267825 A1, hereinafter “Hotta”).
In reference to claim 1, Ishiyama discloses a similar device. Fig. 1-5, 10-16, and 20-22 of Ishiyama disclose a semiconductor device which comprises an insulating substrate (4a) including a conductive pattern (not illustrated but referred to as a wiring pattern – p. 2, paragraph 35) on an upper surface. At least one semiconductor element (1) includes an upper surface electrode (not illustrated but understood to be present and in direct contact with brazing material (2) on upper surface of (1)). The semiconductor element (1) also includes a lower surface electrode (not illustrated but understood to be present and in direct contact with brazing material (2) on lower surface of (1)) on a lower surface. The lower surface electrode is bonded to the conductive pattern of the insulating substrate (4a). At least one inner wiring member (3, 3a) is bonded to the upper surface electrode of the semiconductor element (1). Bonding of the lower surface electrode and the conductive pattern and bonding of the upper surface electrode and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) are performed by a brazing material (2). Ishiyama does not disclose that the brazing material is made of Al as a main component. However Hotta discloses the known use of a brazing laminate material made of Al as a main component (p. 4, paragraphs 82-83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use a brazing material made of Al as a main component. Therefore claim 1 is not patentable over Ishiyama and Hotta.
With regard to claim 3, fig. 21 of Ishiyama discloses that a width (left to right direction) of a part of the inner wiring member (3, 3a) bonded to the upper surface electrode is equal to or larger than a width (left to right direction) of the semiconductor element (1).
In reference to claim 4, in the device of Ishiyama constructed in view of Hotta, a composition of an Al brazing material bonding the lower surface electrode and the conductive pattern and a composition of an Al brazing material bonding the upper surface electrode and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) are the same as each other.
With regard to claim 9, fig. 1-5, 10-12, 15, 21, and 22 of Ishiyama show that there is a plurality of semiconductor elements (1).
In reference to claim 10, fig. 1, 3, 4, and 21 of Ishiyama show that two or more of the inner wiring members (3) bonded to the plurality of semiconductor elements (1) have a same shape.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama in view of Hotta as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shibuya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0024911 A1, hereinafter “Shibuya”).
In reference to claim 2, Ishiyama does not explicitly disclose that the conductive pattern of the insulating substrate (4a), the upper surface electrode and the lower surface electrode of the semiconductor element (1), and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) are formed of a material made of Al as a main component. However Shibuya discloses the known use of aluminum alloy as an electrode and wiring material in semiconductor devices (p. 4, paragraph 55). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use a material made of Al as a main component in the form of an aluminum alloy for use as the material for the conductive pattern of the insulating substrate (4a), the upper surface electrode and the lower surface electrode of the semiconductor element (1), and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) in the device of Ishiyama constructed in view of Hotta.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama in view of Hotta as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Haney et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0246790 A1, hereinafter “Haney”) and further in view of Hotta.
In reference to claim 5, fig. 10-16 and 20-22 of Ishiyama disclose an outer wiring member (12) that is wire bonded to the conductive pattern/bonding pad (13). Ishiyama does not disclose bonding the conductive pattern and the outer wiring member using a brazing process. However Haney discloses that using a brazing process to make electrical connections in a semiconductor device is functionally equivalent to using wire bonding (p. 4, paragraph 31). The examiner would like to point out MPEP § 2144.06: In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). In view of the above and the functional equivalence disclosed by Haney, it would therefore be obvious to use an outer wiring member that makes an electrical connection by using a brazing connection process instead of wire bonding.
Haney does not disclose that the brazing material is made of an Al brazing material. However Hotta discloses the known use of a brazing material made of Al (p. 4, paragraphs 82-83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an Al brazing material.
In reference to claim 6, fig. 10-16 and 20-22 of Ishiyama disclose that the semiconductor element further (1) includes a signal pad (13) on an upper surface that is connected to a signal wiring member (12). Fig. 10, 12, 15, and 16 show that the signal wiring member (12) is connected to a signal terminal (note unlabeled pad). Fig. 10-16 and 20-22 of Ishiyama disclose that the signal wiring member (12) is electrically connected to the signal pad (13) by wire bonding. Ishiyama does not disclose bonding the signal pad and the signal wiring member using a brazing process. However Haney discloses that using a brazing process to make electrical connections in a semiconductor device is functionally equivalent to using wire bonding (p. 4, paragraph 31). The examiner would like to point out MPEP § 2144.06: In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). In view of the above and the functional equivalence disclosed by Haney, it would therefore be obvious to use a signal wiring member that makes electrical connections to the signal pad and the signal terminal by using a brazing connection process instead of wire bonding.
Haney does not disclose that the brazing material is made of an Al brazing material. However Hotta discloses the known use of a brazing material made of Al (p. 4, paragraphs 82-83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an Al brazing material.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama in view of Mori et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0235279 A1, hereinafter “Mori”) and further in view of Hotta.
In reference to claim 11, Ishiyama discloses a similar method. Fig. 1-5, 10-16, and 20-22 of Ishiyama disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device which comprises locating a first brazing material (2) on a conductive pattern (not illustrated but referred to as a wiring pattern – p. 2, paragraph 35) provided to an insulating substrate (4a). At least one semiconductor element (1) is located on the first brazing material (2). A second brazing material (2) is located on top of the semiconductor element (1). At least one inner wiring member (3, 3a) is located on the second brazing material (2).
Ishiyama does not explicitly disclose performing a heat treatment on the inner wiring member (3, 3a) while applying pressure to bond the semiconductor element (1) and the conductive pattern by the first brazing material and to bond the semiconductor element (1) and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) by the second brazing material. However Mori discloses that implementing a brazing process that simultaneously heats and applies pressure to objects being bonded together provides the benefit of a simple and efficient manufacturing process (p. 3, paragraph 35). In view of Mori, it would therefore be obvious to perform a heat treatment on the inner wiring member (3, 3a) while applying pressure to bond the semiconductor element (1) and the conductive pattern by the first brazing material and to bond the semiconductor element (1) and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) by the second brazing material.
Ishiyama does not disclose that the first and second brazing materials are each made of an Al brazing material. However Hotta discloses the known use of a brazing material made of an Al brazing material (p. 4, paragraphs 82-83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an Al brazing material for the first and second brazing materials.
With regard to claim 12, fig. 1-5, 10-16, and 20-22 of Ishiyama discloses a plurality of semiconductor elements (1 - fig. 1-5, 10-16, and 20-22 of Ishiyama) on the insulating substrate (4a). In the method of Ishiyama constructed in view of Mori and Hotta, the step of bonding the semiconductor element (1) to the conductive pattern and the inner wiring member (3, 3a) is performed on the plurality of semiconductor elements (1) at a same time.
With regard to claim 13, fig. 1, 3, 4, and 21 of Ishiyama show that two or more of the inner wiring members (3) bonded to the plurality of semiconductor elements (1) have a same shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in the examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to implement a semiconductor device which comprises at least one semiconductor element with an upper surface electrode bonded to at least one inner wiring element and a lower surface electrode bonded to a conductive pattern on an upper surface of an insulating substrate such that the bonding is done with a brazing material having aluminum as a main component in combination with the specific structural requirements for the conductive pattern, the inner wiring member, and the brazing material described by the applicant in claims 7 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights